View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Agile ROAM Board |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When decisions get stuck between leadership and team, Delegation Poker clarifies the desired scope of autonomy. It shows how much decision-making latitude a role should actually get in practice. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | When work needs to move between different states or columns, it makes that movement and its handoffs legible. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a ROAM Board and an Owner List. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-12 | 3-15 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | ROAM Board, Owner List | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | AutonomyRolesTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |